[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50A2F9FC.5050303@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:55:08 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator
On 2012/11/13 23:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi all,
> this patch set tries to make mem_cgroup_iter saner in the way how it
> walks hierarchies. css->id based traversal is far from being ideal as it
> is not deterministic because it depends on the creation ordering.
>
> Diffstat looks promising but it is fair the say that the biggest cleanup is
> just css_get_next removal. The memcg code has grown a bit but I think it is
> worth the resulting outcome (the sanity ;)).
>
So memcg won't use css id at all, right? Then we can remove the whole css_id
stuff, and that's quite a bunch of code.
> The first patch fixes a potential misbehaving which I haven't seen but the
> fix is needed for the later patches anyway. We could take it alone as well
> but I do not have any bug report to base the fix on.
>
> The second patch replaces css_get_next by cgroup iterators which are
> scheduled for 3.8 in Tejun's tree and I depend on the following two patches:
> fe1e904c cgroup: implement generic child / descendant walk macros
> 7e187c6c cgroup: use rculist ops for cgroup->children
>
> The third patch is an attempt for simplification of the mem_cgroup_iter. It
> basically removes all css usages to make the code easier. The next patch
> removes the big while(!memcg) loop around the iterating logic. It could have
> been folded into #3 but I rather have the rework separate from the code
> moving noise.
>
> The last patch just removes css_get_next as there is no user for it any
> longer.
>
> I am also thinking that leaf-to-root iteration makes more sense but this
> patch is not included in the series yet because I have to think some
> more about the justification.
>
> So far I didn't get to testing but I am posting this early if everybody is
> OK with this change.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists